Downtown Specific Plan: Disaster in the works?

Last Monday, I mentioned that the Planning Commission would be reviewing and commenting on work done to date on the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) on Wednesday, Jan. 9. I urged readers to attend the meeting and comment.

Because the staff report was late last week, there wasn’t adequate time to review it. So, at the request of numerous neighborhood activists, the DSP review has been rescheduled for this coming Wednesday, Jan.16.

Five public meetings have been held so far and there’s more ahead. This plan is a work in progress and your input is needed. The final DSP will determine the fate of the entire Downtown Santa Monica area.

The DSP is inspired by the new Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) that envisions “a thriving, mixed-use urban environment that provides multiple opportunities for living, working, entertainment and enrichment,” says the staff report. The DSP is supposed to compliment the design, land use and traffic planning parameters in LUCE, which defines City Hall’s basic planning philosophy for the next 25 to 30 years, citywide.

The report says there’s a considerable demand for working, living, shopping and entertainment space, Downtown. Estimates are that 1,400 to 2,000 new apartments and 300 to 500 new condos will be needed over the next 15 years. And, even more retail space like grocery stores will be needed to serve new residents moving into the area.

A trio of new hotels approved (but not yet under construction) will provide 560 new hotel rooms. But, staff estimates that’s about 1,000 rooms short of what will be needed by 2020. At least 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of new retail space will be required just to handle the projected five percent annual increase in tourism. Sheesh!

LUCE sees a Downtown that integrates all modes of transportation including the incoming Expo Light Rail, preserves the area’s unique character and maintains and enhances a vibrant commercial and residential life — in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.

Mobility is a major element in both the LUCE and DSP. Therefore, links to the Civic Center to the south and the Santa Monica Pier to the west, accommodating all form of transportation — from private vehicles, to bus and mass transit, walking and bicycling — are mandatory says the report.

The DSP must embrace a multitude of uses including retail, housing, entertainment and culture. Physically, the Downtown area must provide open space or mini-parks, adequate public parking, preservation of historic resources as well as provide other public benefits. In other words, Downtown must be suitable for living, working, shopping, dining and entertaining all at the same time. It’s a tall order.

The staff report notes that the expansion of housing Downtown over the last 15 years has brought in 2,500 new residents. A total of 5,000 residents in all now “contribute to the vibrancy of the area.”

The report attributes specific “character” to various Downtown streets. It suggests that “underutilized” properties such as surface parking lots can “accommodate additional mixed-use projects and smaller office uses.” And, the open spaces replaced by “infill” developments can be replaced by small pocket parks, elsewhere. But, it isn’t the same thing or better.

The eastern edge of “Downtown” — Lincoln Boulevard — is facing the biggest changes. Nearly a dozen new, mixed-use, four and five floor developments are proposed between Wilshire Boulevard and the I-10 Freeway.

When fully occupied, they will contribute substantially to traffic congestion on one of the city’s most heavily traveled corridors. An important goal of the DSP is to provide more walkability to the area, but with more traffic, how can that be achieved without more gridlock and impassable streets? And, don’t forget bicycles.

Add Expo trains crossing Lincoln 24 times an hour during morning and even rush hours and the potential for complete gridlock is assured by this example of incoherent urban planning.

Southern Downtown edge sites adjacent to the (light rail) station and the freeway lend themselves to transit-oriented development opportunities where additional height has minimal impact, states the report. Therefore, height increases of between 28 and 39 feet over present code are recommended in this area.

Some eight “opportunity” sites in the same sector, mostly along Colorado and Ocean avenues, could provide public benefits such as larger parking lots, cultural institutions, parks or “architecturally significant” buildings.

Overall, additional cultural amenities including live theater, a museum, art galleries and movie theaters are desired. It’s too bad the Civic Center Specific Plan was so badly botched because “the arts” would be better served in the Civic Center.

Cultural amenities could have (should have) been located near the Civic Auditorium which would have opened a world of circulation opportunities, expanded the Downtown experience and spread out services and its impacts, both good and bad. Alas, kiss that idea good-bye thanks to bad planning courtesy of an incompetent Civic Center Specific Plan.

The devil is in the details. There’s a lot left to be done and my fear is that planning staff and its consultant, Neal Payton, are adding way too many ingredients to this stew.

Most of my friends and I avoid “Downtown Santa Monica.” It’s already too crowded, too congested, inconvenient and user-unfriendly. Parking’s a nightmare. Pricey retail stores and trendy eateries offer nothing unique. So far, the DSP seems to offer more of the same and even bigger problems — over a wider area.

Read the report for yourself at www01.smgov.net/planning.

To comment, contact the Planning Commission or go the review in person Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall’s council chambers.

Laura Wilson-Hausle
Save Santa Monica!
Do you have an e-mail group you can share the post below with? Or can you copy paste and share it in a post on FB? We need to get this moving FAST!
Santa Monica Resident need the “Right to Vote” on Development.
A Group from Encintas responsible for Prop A have agreed to help us. Susan Turney is putting together a summary of how they made it happen in Encinitas. Also, another main proponent Bruce Ehlers (a former Encinitas planning commissioner) has offered to come to Santa Monica and share with a group why and how they passed Prop A in Encintas. Jerry Sodomka from Encinitas will also be helping. He is a long-time city watcher in Encinitas, in addition to being a vital part of the Prop A team. He knows all the tricks and misleading language that developers and monied interests use to try to convince residents that they’re working in their best interests.
I am 100% certain the ONYL way to control development is for the Residents to have the “right to vote” on DA’s and zoning changes. Current City Council majority cannot be trusted with the future development of Santa Monica. The majority pro-devlopment Council, who’s money got them elected, will not stop until they have doubled density in DT.
Just imagine what it will be like when they add 10 million more square feet to our City. We are already in gridlock! Our residents avoid DT because of the current level of congestion and traffic. We can no longer enjoy our own city, because it’s being hijacked by outside interests, who care little about the long-term damage they will do.
The key is to keep to our Proposition simple to understand.
Below is an email I received from Bruce Ehlers…
Laura Wilson-Hausle
(949) 689-5432
From: Bruce Ehlers .
To: ‘Laura Wilson’ .
Cc: ‘Gerald Sodomka’ ; susankturney@yahoo.com.
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 11:27 AM.
Subject: RE: prop A on Santa Monica….
Laura …
Our City woke up and capitulated. They decided to implement Prop A as it was intended and dropped their position that the Coastal Commission would block part of the implementation. All is good now although we are sure there is more fun coming.
Jerry and Susan are interested in helping too. We view this as a necessary movement in California to bring control back to the local authority. What blogs are you posting on? We could help keep them accurate and truthful relative to Prop A.
Bruce